{"id":196867,"date":"2024-03-12T04:12:41","date_gmt":"2024-03-12T08:12:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/?p=196867"},"modified":"2024-03-14T18:19:28","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T22:19:28","slug":"privy-council-rules-in-antigua-land-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/privy-council-rules-in-antigua-land-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Privy Council Rules in Favour of Mr Geoffrey Croft"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>

In a landmark ruling, the Privy Council has delivered judgment in Privy Council Appeal No 0060 of 2021, Joseph W Horsford (as Administrator of the Estate of William Horsford, deceased) v Geoffrey Croft.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

The decision, handed down on March 5, 2024, saw the highest court in Antigua and Barbuda overturning a previous decision of the Court of Appeal, thus ruling in favor of Mr. Geoffrey Croft.<\/p>\n

The case revolved around the existence of a right of way over two parcels of land owned by Mr. Croft, adjacent to a private road owned by Mr. Joseph W Horsford, acting as the administrator of the estate of William Horsford. While there was no express right of way, Mr. Croft argued that such a right existed as an easement of necessity.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

The land in question, situated at Monk\u2019s Hill in the parish of Saint Paul on Antigua, once formed part of a larger estate owned by William Horsford.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Over time, this estate was subdivided, leading to the creation of various parcels of land, including those owned by Mr. Croft and the private road owned by Mr. Horsford.<\/p>\n

The crucial issue before the Privy Council was whether Mr. Croft’s land had the right of way over the upper eastern road, known locally as Monks Hill Road. Mr. Croft contended that this was the only feasible access route to his property, while Mr. Horsford argued that an alternative route, the lower western road, provided sufficient access.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

The Privy Council’s judgment hinged on two key conditions: factual access and legal ownership.<\/p>\n

It was established that the upper eastern road indeed provided access to Mr. Croft’s property, satisfying the factual condition. Moreover, it was undisputed that Mr. Horsford owned the entire upper eastern road, meeting the legal ownership condition.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

On the other hand, the lower western road, while initially asserted by Mr. Horsford as an alternative access route, failed to meet the legal ownership condition.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Despite evidence suggesting a track connecting it to the public road, there was no conclusive proof of Mr. Horsford’s ownership over the entire route, thus undermining his claim.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In light of these findings, the Privy Council concluded that Mr. Croft was entitled to a pedestrian and vehicular right of way over the upper eastern road. The ruling marks a significant victory for Mr. Croft, affirming his access rights to his property.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In summary, the Privy Council’s ruling in favor of Mr. Croft not only secures his right of way but also clarifies the boundaries of the dispute, providing clarity in this contentious legal matter.<\/p>\n

For the Appellant, Geoffrey Croft:<\/strong><\/p>\n